Appeal No. 97-2645
Application 08/448,638
Claims 1, 2 and 6 through 8 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese ‘620.2
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement
of the above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding the rejec-
tion, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
12, mailed February 21, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No.
11, filed November 20, 1996) for appellants’ arguments there-
against.
OPINION
2As for the four references cited by the examiner on page
3 of the answer as being “considered pertinent to applicant’s
[sic] invention because each reference discloses a pressure
plate made from multiple pieces,” we note that these patents
have not been set forth in the statement of any § 102 or § 103
rejection before us on appeal and therefore form no part of
the issues presently before us for review. As pointed out by
the Court in In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ
406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970), where a reference is relied upon to
support a rejection, whether or not in a minor capacity, there
would appear to be no excuse for not positively including the
reference in the statement of the rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007